I spent several hours on this, rearranging sentences, replacing words, and simplifying ideas. Originally I wanted to submit it to the Falcon, so I had to reduce things considerably. The opinion editor, rather unprofessionally, chose not to respond, so I shrugged it off, content in having my thought crystallized and having made these discoveries about myself and my past.
Then I thought, hey, why don’t I submit it to Thought Catalog. I like how their page design enables people to actually read the words of an article without being assaulted by dozens of ads and links along the way. It would be sweet to see this published somewhere, and have that on my resume.
But on submission, your only option is to agree to the following:
We reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to (a) edit the Content…..
In my arrogance that stemmed from having spent hours editing it already, I didn’t really register the significance of this….for what more was there to edit, I thought. After submitting, I got a bad feeling when I realized, uh oh, I don’t get to write the “tags” or upload the accompanying image. And maybe there will be edits. Hopefully they don’t destroy the meaning.
Checking my email the next day, here was the link to my article, which, I was surprised to find, had been quickly published. There was also an email from Jaxon Hawks, which said, “just wanted to say thank you for the shout in your blog. Glad to have you aboard bud!” That was really cool to get, because I’ve been listening to him since before he was a DJ at JRFM, and because he posted it to their facebook page.
And then I reread the article, dismayed at what I saw. There were edits, plenty of them. My satisfaction from being published was largely outweighed by the revulsion I felt to this new version. I will now take the opportunity to address the editor, in a not-so-edited fashion.
Here is the original writing:
I tried complaining, I tried covering my ears…..All those natural behaviors we have when confronted with a culture we don’t understand.
You edited this to say: “I tried all those natural behaviors.” Good job catching onto my use of anaphora, but I left “I tried” off of this sentence for what should be an obvious reason: you can’t “try” something that comes naturally. I naturally disliked country, because it was a representation of a culture I didn’t understand, and then I tried various tactics to get it away from me. The edit makes it sound like I’m sitting there as a child, going, “oh, what natural behavior should I try next.” Sweet.
Meanwhile, the big singles of the mid-2000s era won me over, also because of striking imagery, moreso because of profound lessons.
This became: “
also not only because of their striking imagery, moreso but because of their profound lessons.” Ever heard of an implied pronoun? I did write “their,” and then struck it out because it was unnecessary, rhetorically and grammatically. I chose the word “also” because I wanted to tie “striking imagery” to “Something Like That,” rather than seem like I was just dropping that phrase in from nowhere. And I did consider “not only” for the conjunction, but noticing it in a paragraph near the end of my essay, found it lame to use that “not only…but” sentence construction twice. But well, here it is again, lame as can be.
“Summertime” and “Young” by Kenny Chesney showed me how to cherish the season and stage of life you’re in.
This became: “showed me how to cherish
the season and your current stage of life.” Not that irritating of an edit, and economical at that. My original made sense though. “Summertime” is about cherishing a season (Summer), and “Young” is about cherishing a stage of life (you can find many other meanings and lessons in those songs as well, those were just some that jumped out to me….).
I didn’t fully grasp these messages until years later. Something in them just sounded ambiguously profound……Which is how country, and heck, all music should be enjoyed: first with heart, then with head.
This became: “I didn’t fully grasp these messages until years later, but something in them
just sounded ambiguously profound….. Which is This how country and all music should be enjoyed: first with your heart, then with your head.” After I wrote this piece, I was annoyed by how often I used the word “but,” so I deleted that word as much as I could. You can see why it was kind of infuriating to see it put back in. And then we have more additions of the implied pronoun. Unnecessary, annoying, and only serves to deemphasize, it’s just more words to distract from the content. I will concede that I should have wrote “Something in those songs” rather than “Something in them.” Possible pronoun confusion (“them,” I intended to substitute for “songs,” not “messages”) now made even more obvious by the combining of the sentences. And….”This how?” There’s a time and place to drop helping verbs (if you’re Kanye West, for instance), but this is not one. Yes, you’re human and make typographic mistakes, but you wouldn’t have made this mistake if you just left it alone.
That wasn’t hard to do with the classics like…
Changed into: “That wasn’t hard to do with the classics
like such as….” The word “like” literally means “such as.” All you did was make the sentence more formal sounding than I wanted, and upped the word count which I took pains to reduce.
They’re hyperbolic, they’re unapologetic, they’re sincerely patriotic, and I was charmed by that audacity.
Became: “They’re hyperbolic,
they’re unapologetic, and they’re sincerely patriotic , and I was charmed by that audacity. Their audacity charmed me.” This is an interesting reversal of sorts. Now you’re taking out pronouns that I actually chose not to leave as implied. Are we both contradicting ourselves here? Well, those 3 qualities (hyperbolic, unapologetic, patriotic) aren’t normally related or associated, so I felt they sounded awkward if not broken up with some anaphora. Also, I took great pains to make sure that every sentence was a proper sequel to the one prior. With “their audacity charmed me” it’s not totally clear that the audacity came from those 3 qualities, qualities which make a song worthy to be called audacious. Points for making the sentence active rather than passive, but passive voice is mostly a crime when overused by students trying to pad out the word count of their paper and/or sound academic. And what’s the real problem with passive voice? It weakens a sentence. But the edit made it weaker. How could that be? Sentences get much of their power for how they end, and I consciously selected “audacity” to be the lingering note. Then I read this essay back and it has this retarded-sounding, impactless, “their audacity charmed me.”
….when I went to the Washington FFA State Convention.
Became: “when I went to the Washington FFA (Future Farmers of America) state convention." Good job doing your homework, but if you really would have looked, you’d have seen that FFA hasn’t stood for that since the 80s. And the reader doesn’t need to know what it stands for, they can google it in two seconds if by some chance they don’t grasp what’s going on through context clues. And then you had to go ahead an uncapitalize "state convention," when it is specifically the Washington FFA’s, and not just a general state convention. I kind of hate this essay now.
that song wasn’t made to be exclusively for the listening of middle-aged farmers,….
Became: “that song wasn’t made
to be exclusively for the listening of middle-aged farmers.” Those were actually some good edits. Nice catch.
My country cred is disputable, and yet, my appreciation is no less diminished.
Here, you just got rid of the comma after “yet.” That was another good move, grammatically sound and better for the rhythm of the sentence. Props.
Appreciation of what, exactly? Greatness. Turn on the radio and hear it for yourself.
Became: “Turn on the radio and hear the greatness for yourself.” This was one of the most devastating, head-to-the-desk-inducing edits. You see, I’ll put my hand on The Elements of Style and swear by its minimalist principles, but I recognize that too much editing can destroy meaning, rhythm, logical progression, etc. That happened here, when we go from “my appreciation is no less diminished,” straight into “turn on the radio and hear the greatness for yourself.”
The word “greatness,” was meant to be the focus of that paragraph, and show the things which qualify to me, as greatness which deserves appreciation. I intended to imply this: through the use of these specific talents, which much less than 1% of the population has, these artists have accomplished the elevation of the human spirit, the cataloging of a current moment in time, in a culture, in a personhood: the uplifting expression of the innermost self—of themselves and, judging by their popularity, for many others. These are some of the noblest functions of art.
Now the paragraph just sounds awkwardly dropped in, just a showoff-y survey of artists that I like, with the word “greatness” robbed of its emphasis and purpose.
and worst of all…conservative politics.
The three dots were replaced with a comma. Again, your edits are only serving to soften ideas that I wanted to really land.
I’d ascribe this mistake to the memefication of our media intake, which encourages shallow, inaccurate, and highly pixelated ways of thinking (but that’s a discussion for another time).
Became: “I’d ascribe this mistake to
the memefication of our media climate, which encourages shallow and highly inaccurate, and highly pixelated ways of thinking.” Honestly, I wasn’t surprised that “memefication” was taken out. But I don’t think that a little portmanteau was unearned or inappropriate here, whether this was to be published in the school newspaper, or your high-minded website, which has such a commitment to the purity of the English language.
And that phrase, “media climate,” just makes my stomach turn. It’s so lame, thoughtless sounding, it makes me glad that I chose not to put my real name on the submission.
Which is why I can only….
Replaced “which” with “this.” Fine by me.
Because it sounds like family and friends, and crowds of overjoyed people singing aloud.
Removed “and,” and replaced with a comma. I don’t really have the energy left to argue this one. Just another example of the essay being made blander and blander. Voice being shut down in favor of the commonplace.
If I can go from hatred to that in a few years’ time, I believe there’s a hillbilly bone in all of us.
Became: “If I can go from
hatred to that hating all that to loving it in a few years’ time…” What the shit? How did you miss the point of this final sentence? “That,” as I intended, meant the attitude I now have, as shown in this paragraph. “That,” as you intended, means…..what? “Hating all that.” Coming at the end of the paragraph, it now sounds like I hated cold beer, family, friends, all the things I just described. Just wow
I suspect this was done by Jim Goad, who emailed me the link. And I suspect he has little respect for the work he edits, seeing as he tastelessly added the tags, “Deliverance,” and “Ned Beatty rape scene,” and the articles he writes tend toward lewdness, bitterness, and contempt for the reader. I recognize that if I want to be a writer, I’ll need to deal with editors, and make compromises with them, but I’d like to do that face-to-face, or through email, and have a chance to do so prior to publishing. With that, I unreluctantly end the relationship between this website and me.